Enforcement of crimes of universal jurisdiction in the absence of traditional jurisdictional nexuses - state, regional and international practice in bringing individuals to justice

Abstract

Universal jurisdiction is inconsistently understood and relied upon in contemporary international legal practice. The enforcement of universal jurisdiction, in its 'pure' form (that is, without reliance upon any traditional jurisdictional nexus to the offender or the crime), has been exceedingly rare. Its successful enforcement is further obstructed by the influence of political actors because reliance upon universal jurisdiction is always tainted by the level of political risk associated with the prosecution of another nation's citizen by a third-party state. Further, the absence of a clear understanding of the application of the jurisdiction and its scope results in widely differing use of the doctrine, particularly in regard to the application of fair trial rules, the selection of the forum and harmonization of domestic enforcement with international legal norms. The difficulties and inconsistent application in the enforcement of this doctrine prevents the development of appropriate mechanisms to bring to justice those guilty of the worst kind of crimes who otherwise live with impunity. This thesis examines how the doctrine of universal jurisdiction has been enforced. The case studies from the domestic, regional and international levels, will be analysed to determine where the gaps in enforcement of universal jurisdiction exist by reference to four overarching criteria: procedural and due process rights; forum selection; harmonisation within international law principles; and political risk. Notably, these case studies will assess contemporary examples of the enforcement of universal jurisdiction, as well as trials addressing similar criminal offences, to identify gaps in the application of universal jurisdiction to end impunity for international criminal law offences. Following this analysis, measures to address these gaps in enforcing the doctrine to promote international criminal justice will be suggested. The suggested solutions to these identified enforcement problems will be mapped against existing international discourse on the scope and application of the jurisdiction - comparing the UN General Assembly Sixth Committee's ongoing reports to existing successful application of the doctrine - to provide an effective framework for states to consider in order to end impunity for serious international crimes. This analysis and development of suggestions to harness this doctrine of international law will seek to establish what role the universal jurisdiction can meaningfully play in bringing an end to injustice for egregious criminal conduct subject to universal jurisdiction. Show more